State v. Cohen
Decision Date | 24 July 1980 |
Citation | 289 Or. 525,614 P.2d 1156 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey J. COHEN, Respondent. CA 12428; SC 26553. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert C. Cannon, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Marianne O. Bottini, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the briefs was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Before DENECKE, C. J., and TONGUE, HOWELL, LENT and PETERSON, JJ.
The defendant was indicted for aggravated murder, ORS 163.095(2)(d), and murder under ORS 163.115(1)(b). In a trial before the court he was convicted of both charges. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the ground that the indictment charging aggravated murder was insufficient. We granted the State's petition for review.
The indictment stated in pertinent part:
The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals held that Count I of the indictment alleging aggravated murder was deficient because it did not allege that the defendant "personally" committed the murder. The court then reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for modification of defendant's conviction from aggravated felony murder to felony murder and for entry of a new sentence. 2 42 Or. 297, 600 P.2d 892 (1979). Chief Judge Schwab dissented, arguing that the indictment, in its entirety, clearly charges that the defendant personally shot his victim in violation of the aggravated felony murder statute.
Aggravated felony murder is defined in ORS 163.095(2)(d):
"The defendant personally committed the homicide in the course or in the furtherance of the crime of robbery in any degree, kidnapping or arson in the first degree, any sexual offense specified in (ORS ch. 163), or in immediate flight therefrom."
Under ORS 132.550(7), an indictment must contain:
"A statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended; * * * ."
Under ORS 132.540(3):
"Words used in a statute to define a crime need not be strictly pursued in the indictment, but other words conveying the same meaning may be used."
This court has stated that the objects of an indictment are (1) to inform the defendant of the nature of the crime with sufficient particularity to enable him to make his defense, (2) to identify the offense so as to enable the defendant to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal thereof if he should be prosecuted further for the same cause, and (3) to inform the court of the facts charged so that it may determine whether or not they are sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Sanders, 280 Or. 685, 687-88, 572 P.2d 1307 (1977); State v. Smith, 182 Or. 497, 500-01, 188 P.2d 998 (1948). We have further recognized that article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees that persons accused of a crime have the right to "demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him." State v. Sanders, supra 280 Or. at 688, 572 P.2d at 1308.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that aggravated murder (ORS 163.095(2)(d)) and felony murder (ORS 163.115(1)(b)) are distinct offenses. Under ORS 163.115(1)(b), in order to constitute felony murder, the defendant must have been engaged in the commission of one of the specified felonies and a homicide must have been caused by the defendant or by any other participant in the crime. For aggravated felony murder, ORS 163.095(2)(d) requires that the defendant personally commit the homicide. The elements of the two crimes are the same except that aggravated felony murder under ORS 163.095(2)(d) requires one additional element: personal commission of the homicide.
Although the indictment does not contain the word "personally" in referring to the manner in which defendant caused the death of another human being, the indictment was sufficient to notify defendant that he had to defend the charge of aggravated murder under ORS 163.095(2)(d). The indictment specifically listed the crime of aggravated murder and referred to ORS 163.095. The indictment then particularly charged that defendant, in the course of a robbery, "did cause the death of another human being, to-wit: Donald V. Baune, by shooting him with a firearm, to-wit: a pistol, * * * ." (Emphasis added.) Charging the defendant with causing death "by shooting (the victim) with a firearm" is sufficient to inform the defendant that the State intends to prove that defendant had personally committed the homicide. Accordingly, we rever...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Montez
...repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended; * * * " In State v. Cohen, 289 Or. 525, 529, 614 P.2d 1156 (1980), we stated that the functions of an indictment "(1) to inform the defendant of the nature of the crime with sufficient par......
-
State v. Nefstad
...and [a] robber who merely participated in the felony." 289 Or. at 539, 614 P.2d 1158 (emphasis added). See also State v. Cohen, 289 Or. 525, 529, 614 P.2d 1156 (1980). homicide must be personal; mere participation in the underlying felony is not enough. In sum, as defendant contends, and as......
-
Antoine v. Taylor
...the court of the facts charged so that it may determine whether or not they are sufficient to support a conviction." State v. Cohen , 289 Or. 525, 529, 614 P.2d 1156 (1980). Petitioner does not appear to dispute that, at least prior to Hale , a demurrer was an appropriate mechanism to chall......
-
State v. Linthwaite, s. 80-281-C
...and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended * * * "* * *." In State v. Cohen, 289 Or. 525, 529, 614 P.2d 1156 (1980), the Supreme Court said: "* * * (T)he objects of an indictment are (1) to inform the defendant of the nature of the crime with s......